'When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses not zebras' - the old adage is well-known to GPs but what should you do when faced with a zebra, not a horse? Consultant cardiologist Professor Robert Tulloh and GP Dr Louise Tulloh kick off our new series with their advice on how to catch Kawasaki disease in general practice.

This is in contrast to the National Osteoporosis Guideline Group’s recommendation that primary prevention with bisphosphonates should being at around 7% 10-year risk in those aged 40 years, rising to a 20% risk threshold in the over 70s.

The SIGN osteoporosis guidelines, which say that patients with a 10 year risk of greater than 10% should have a DXA scan and receive treatment with bisphosphonates after that if appropriate, also contrast with NICE recommendations.

NICE cautions that this does not mean that every patient at low risk should receive treatment and that doctors need to use their clinical judgement.

The guideline says: 'The choice of treatment should be made on an individual basis after discussion between the responsible clinician and the patient, or their carers, about the advantages and disadvantages of the treatments available.'

The National Osteoporosis Society said of the new advice: 'With growing concerns about possible rare long term effects of bisphosphonate treatments, we want to make sure that people are only given a treatment when the benefits of treatment outweigh the risks.

'Health professionals, especially non-specialists like GPs, may need some additional guidance to support their decisions about which patients should be offered a bisphosphonate.'

The appraisal reasons that the threshold for prescribing the drugs is low as they are shown to be both clinically effective and cost effective at this level.

Drug recommendations in the technology appraisal will apply to both women and men for the first time. It also states that IV bisphosphonates should only be given without trying oral bisphosphonates first if the 10 year risk is 10% or greater.

Dr Sally Hope, a GP and a hospital clinical assistant in osteoporosis, said: 'So what has really changed since the initial NICE guidelines is the generic cost of bisphosphonates. They are now very cheap drugs, so it is cost effective to treat lots more people to reduce fracture risk.'

The appraisal can be used as the basis for NICE guidance on bisphosphonates in osteoporosis following a period during which consultees can appeal against it.

Readers' comments (7)

Give us the vital piece of info... NNT. Presumably in those with a risk of 1% this is going to be some multiple of 99. Do you think treating, say, 500 patients with a bisphosphonate for 10 years to prevent one fracture is the way forward?

Here we go again.One thing NICE different from the other bodies is the virtual authority it carries : CCGs have to fulfil a NICE guidance by making the recommended treatment 'available' legally . 1% 10YR versus 7, 10 and 20% . Mmmmm, one can use common sense for this argument?Don't say we are anti-establishment again ........

Agree with drwho, treatment cost is more than the price of the drug, but then in the all you can eat buffet that gp has become, gp time is free and does not need to be factored into the equation of cost benefit analysis

Interesting they talk about evidence of cost effectiveness when there is actually NO evidence for bisphosphonates in primary prevention... at all. I'm sticking with SIGN / RedWhale - the latter has an excellent though fairly lengthy summary that lays bare the arguments for/against. In essence - follow SIGN guidance (if 10% risk fracture, then DEXA).
A 1% threshold of fracture is ludicrous.